Delivery dates of CT and Cybertruck Van

[JBee]

I'm working on a off-road "Cybervan" alternative, just for the fun of doing a design exercise in my head and on CAD. If anyone is curious we could start a thread to discuss.

Base is a modular build that consists of a single wheel suspension setup with built in axial flux induction motor with in hub planetary gear and air operated disc brake, hanging on a pushrod actuated double wishbone air suspension setup, with electronically adjustable shocks, each with steering knuckle (for 4WS). Each module will be rated for between 1.25 to 2tons.

Vehicle can be whatever wheelbase, width or vehicle length by changing what slots in between the modules. Front drivers cab will be provided, either as a dash back or full drivers cab and chassis or enclosed van body. Battery sizes can be whatever is required and be in the form of a load bearing structural 4680 pack chassis to accommodate the body types.

2 pieces of this module can be used as a FWD van with a lazy axle rear, for urban delivery vehicles etc. up to 8 tons, 4 modules for a 4X4 with 4WS and 5-8tons total, and a 6x6 for 7.5 to 12tons, which could also use lazy axles, or unpowered modules instead for the third axle. All on super single tyres.

The capacity is at that level so it can reach between 6-9 seater passenger van, all the way up under semi as a smaller flat bed truck avoiding the need for any other in between models. There is also a potential to use the modules for powering other types of vehicles, including industrial or agricultural tractors, earthmoving and dedicated working machines, for things like sweepers, rubbish truck, firetrucks or road maintenance. The same vehicle could also do multiple tasks for municipal etc with dedicated pickup bodies.

Manufacturing and maintenance should be kept to a minimum by reusing the same assemblies throughout the whole vehicle range, along with minimal wear and tear components. Although the motors are hub designed, axial flux motors can be used with up to 160kW per wheel using a planetary gear, and only 4 bearings in total in the driveline, adding about 18kg of un-sprung weight to each wheel. For comparison, a 35" CT wheel will weigh anywhere between 35 and 45kg, and vehicle dynamics are unlikely to be affected much, in comparison to a sports car were un-sprung weight plays a larger roll. In inboard pushrod suspension also lowers the unsprung weight, as does the higher rpm motor with a higher ration planetary gear, that in turn keep the motor within it's ideal efficiency island.

Anyway, would be interesting to discuss.

 

[Crissa]

I bet your a blast to live with. Such a positive person.
I just posted back in December that there was a Van on the production schedule.

There is not a van on the production schedule.

I won't poo-poo anyone saying Tesla should, will, might, and even what.

But when is an actual fact that we know Tesla does not have at this point.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

It's highly likely Tesla will get closer to production before announcing another model to avoid having to delay things like with the CT. That also means a van announcement will be much closer to a delivery date, especially now that 4680 battery production is ramping up and are already in shipped vehicles.

I also can't see robotaxi and van not sharing the same platform.

 

[JBee]

This looks like an interesting concept, just not sure how they manage the structure for that huge double opening sliding door. Seems to be a decent size monospace, but I'm hoping for something a bit more modular where different bodies can go on the same platform.

 

[charliemagpie]

it's 12 people AND luggage.

 

[Cybertruck Hawaii]

Main Street will be looking forward to a seven passenger electric van to replace their Toyota Sienna ICE van.

 

[Cybertruck Hawaii]

I wouldn’t want to own a 12 passenger electric van for personal use. It would weigh over 10,000 pounds and the registration fee would cost me a small fortune here in Hawaii.

 

[Cybertruck Hawaii]

Would the Cybervan also be based on a stainless steel exoskeleton like the Cybertruck?

 

[Ogre]

I’m better Cybervan would be pointed at Robotaxi and Boring tunnel use. Seems to me a van for that purpose would be more like 6-8 passengers plus luggage. Big 12 seat vans are more for church field trips and Google employee pick up.

Sending 2 small vans for the rare occasion where you need 12 people makes more sense than sending a 12 person van to pick up 3 people a lot of the time.

 

[Crissa]

I’m better Cybervan would be pointed at Robotaxi and Boring tunnel use. Seems to me a van for that purpose would be more like 6-8 passengers plus luggage. Big 12 seat vans are more for church field trips and Google employee pick up.

Sending 2 small vans for the rare occasion where you need 12 people makes more sense than sending a 12 person van to pick up 3 people a lot of the time.

Yeah, I always hear 'autonomy won't solve traffic, we need busses!' And I just look at them and ask, 'why won't busses be autonomous?'

For the same price as a bus driver's salary, you'll be able to buy a van to loop around every village nearly endlessly. And then operate a half dozen of them near round-the-clock for the cost of a single traditional bus.

-Crissa

 

[Quicksilver]

As stated previously on this thread "I'd buy that for a dollar".
If it takes as long to deliver a van as it is taking to get me my CT they would probably be playing "Taps" over me before I took delivery.
I'd much rather have a van for stealth camping and hauling high value cargo but I'll make the CT work for both when I get it.

 

[JBee]

I’m better Cybervan would be pointed at Robotaxi and Boring tunnel use. Seems to me a van for that purpose would be more like 6-8 passengers plus luggage. Big 12 seat vans are more for church field trips and Google employee pick up.

Sending 2 small vans for the rare occasion where you need 12 people makes more sense than sending a 12 person van to pick up 3 people a lot of the time.

The step from 9 to 12 seats is just one folding row of seats away. If you do 3 seats wide then 9 seats is 3 rows and 12 four rows. The space for the 12seat 4th row is also where luggage can go. 12 seats is also better for social distancing, and will still work under 3.5t.

Technically 4 seats wide also works if the van is 2m wide.

 

[Ogre]

The step from 9 to 12 seats is just one folding row of seats away. If you do 3 seats wide then 9 seats is 3 rows and 12 four rows. The space for the 12seat 4th row is also where luggage can go. 12 seats is also better for social distancing, and will still work under 3.5t.

Technically 4 seats wide also works if the van is 2m wide.

This is assuming you have a big van to begin with.

To get 9 people you don’t need a much bigger footprint than a Model Y. They already get 3 rows of seats in that car. If they made it a bit wider, a bit taller, and just about a foot longer, you could have a 9 passenger van on frame just a hair bigger than the Model Y. You couldn’t get a 12 passenger van on that platform.

 

[JBee]

This is assuming you have a big van to begin with.

To get 9 people you don’t need a much bigger footprint than a Model Y. They already get 3 rows of seats in that car. If they made it a bit wider, a bit taller, and just about a foot longer, you could have a 9 passenger van on frame just a hair bigger than the Model Y. You couldn’t get a 12 passenger van on that platform.

I very much doubt van is on M3/MY of MX platform because of the payload capacity required for 9 people. Thats some 800-900kg. If anything it would be CT platform. Master plan part 2 also says "high passenger-density urban transport", that doesn't sound like 9 to me, at least 12 to possibly 20? Maybe some standing?

That will actually work on the CT platform capacity wise, and 4WS makes it urban compatible. Don't forget it will be a forward control vehicle type van so no long front section. For city use aero can be more bulbous too for better volume. Less than 2m wide is also not necessary, so might as well use the full volume of the vehicle road footprint.

 

[Ogre]

I very much doubt van is on M3/MY of MX platform because of the payload capacity required for 9 people. Thats some 800-900kg. If anything it would be CT platform. Master plan part 2 also says "high passenger-density urban transport", that doesn't sound like 9 to me, at least 12 to possibly 20? Maybe some standing?

That will actually work on the CT platform capacity wise, and 4WS makes it urban compatible. Don't forget it will be a forward control vehicle type van so no long front section. For city use aero can be more bulbous too for better volume. Less than 2m wide is also not necessary, so might as well use the full volume of the vehicle road footprint.

If the van is the Robotaxi, I don’t think it makes sense to put it on the Cybertruck base. The majority of fares would be 1-2 people. Pushing around a giant van for that purpose is a waste. And the Robotaxi is the most likely vehicle Tesla will attack next. And is likely to be van-ish.

Its also unlikely Teslas van will need 35 inch tires or suspension like what the Cybertruck offers. It won’t need big towing capacity either.